Obama's Kill List

[3rdnlng]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

 

I thought this an interesting article, and one worthy of discussion here.

 

 

 

"They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

[/dev/null]

Not an accurate thread title IMO. The list of candidates are provided by the military and intel communities. The decision as to which candidate is rightfully so the sole responsibility of the President.

 

Whether the US should even be doing this another argument.

[3rdnlng]

Not an accurate thread title IMO. The list of candidates are provided by the military and intel communities. The decision as to which candidate is rightfully so the sole responsibility of the President.

 

Whether the US should even be doing this another argument.

 

 

The article clearly said he makes the final decision on everbody that gets put on the list. Of course the list of candidates are provided by others. I posted this with the idea that the practice itself might get debated here along with some of the periphery issues. Myself, I'm conflicted over this. I think killing terrorists is a good thing, but wonder how we would feel if a foreign country started sending drones over our territory, killing our citizens. The one thing that surprised me is the extent that Obama is doing this.

[DC Tom]

The article clearly said he makes the final decision on everbody that gets put on the list. Of course the list of candidates are provided by others. I posted this with the idea that the practice itself might get debated here along with some of the periphery issues. Myself, I'm conflicted over this. I think killing terrorists is a good thing, but wonder how we would feel if a foreign country started sending drones over our territory, killing our citizens. The one thing that surprised me is the extent that Obama is doing this.

 

Yeah, sucks when reality collides with idealism. The view from the Big Chair is substantially different than from the campaign trail.

 

I'm conflicted on the principle...but if anyone wants to come up with a better system for targeted prosecution of quasi-military targets on quasi-battlefields, I'm all ears. I don't have one.

[Koko78]

Obama is trying to push the toughguy angle with this story because he can't run on anything he's done domestically. Nothing screams campaign desperation like a lefty crowing about how he's responsible for killing tons of bad guys.

 

As for the propriety/legality of such a "kill list" program, that is going to have to be left up to historians.

[dayman]

I'm conflicted on the principle...but if anyone wants to come up with a better system for targeted prosecution of quasi-military targets on quasi-battlefields, I'm all ears. I don't have one.

 

Agreed.

 

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s record has not drawn anything like the sweeping criticism from allies that his predecessor faced. John B. Bellinger III, a top national security lawyer under the Bush administration, said that was because Mr. Obama’s liberal reputation and “softer packaging” have protected him. “After the global outrage over Guantánamo, it’s remarkable that the rest of the world has looked the other way while the Obama administration has conducted hundreds of drone strikes in several different countries, including killing at least some civilians,” said Mr. Bellinger, who supports the strikes.

 

This is basically the key to his foreign policy success, in a nut shell. Better to speak softly and carry a big stick...etc...

Edited May 29, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

This is basically the key to his foreign policy success, in a nut shell. Better to speak softly and carry a big stick...etc...

 

And illustrates why Bush's foreign policy is perceived to be more of a failure: actions aren't too dissimilar, but Bush's public rhetoric was always more confrontational, which scared a lot of people.

 

His private rhetoric...well, he gave Angela Merkel a shoulder massage. !@#$ing idjimit.

[dayman]

And illustrates why Bush's foreign policy is perceived to be more of a failure: actions aren't too dissimilar, but Bush's public rhetoric was always more confrontational, which scared a lot of people.

 

His private rhetoric...well, he gave Angela Merkel a shoulder massage. !@#$ing idjimit.

 

Well Bush had an entire different set of issues besides that....but you don't go around talking like a cowboy in this day in age (when you more than likely will have to act like one).

[Keukasmallies]

Any way I could get Hill'ry on that list? I'm just saying'....

[GG]

I'm conflicted on the principle...but if anyone wants to come up with a better system for targeted prosecution of quasi-military targets on quasi-battlefields, I'm all ears. I don't have one.

 

You mean like holding military tribunals in an offshore location?

 

Or perhaps remote controlled missile strikes are more humane?

[B-Man]

"We can understand why Obama is doing this," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the president's 'kill list.' "Why they clearly leaked this to the press. They want obama to look tough, hawkish and part of that is what is happening around the world.

You look at massacres in Syria, he is standing by.

You look at negotiations with Iran over it nukes, they're going nowhere.

There is a collapse in Baghdad.

Look at the way that the Russians are treating the United States. Putin dissing Obama personally by not showing up at the G8 summit or the NATO summit as a kind of way to slap Obama in the face and he does this without any reaction."

 

"So here's a story that shows he is a tough guy, he kills by remote control. There are a few problem with this. Number one, is as a military strategy, we aren't getting any intelligence, this is the past of least resistance. And some of the intelligence people are telling you we are living off the intelligence of the Bush years and soon it will not be useful because it will be outdated. Second is a moral argument. Obama went around preening, particularly in '08 and even after he's elected he went around the world preening about how there is a new direction and a moral direction of the United States. How we had lost our way with Iraq with these enhanced interrogations and now he's going around and killing people where he is judge, jury and executioner,"

 

Real Clear Politics

 

.

[B-Man]

Asking a potential voter for his driver’s license? Civil-Rights violation! Assassinating a U.S. citizen? Not a Civil-Rights violation!

 

 

Clearly, Eric Holder is a genius of rare subtlety.

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

Clearly, Eric Holder is a genius of rare subtlety.

 

 

.

 

 

But the Times reports some of those strikes are made without positive, concrete confirmation of the identities of those in the strike zone. These so-called "signature strikes" hit targets based on evidence of suspicious behavior. Who is on the ground at the time is often unknown.

 

"Wait...what?" - George Zimmerman.

[/dev/null]

"Wait...what?" - George Zimmerman.

Alwar Al-Aliki just went to Yemen for some Skittles

[B-Man]

Also from the NYT article;

 

Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in counterterrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions.

 

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

"Wait...what?" - George Zimmerman.

Damn, that's funny.

[dayman]

IDK to each his own and I certainly would not want Obama's job but I personally like that he feels he needs to take moral responsibility. Personally...never had a problem w/ the means Bush took and don't mind the drone attacks now...at this point the drone attacks IMO are a better option and right after 911 it was probably better to get them and shake them down. Either way as a result of both President's actions that organization has been decimated (though not destroyed completely as that is near impossible). I'd think twice before a joined up though if I look around and realize it means I'll be dead (and dead before I even do anything for my "cause").

[3rdnlng]

You mean like holding military tribunals in an offshore location?

 

Or perhaps remote controlled missile strikes are more humane?

 

Everyone they blow up aren't going to be able to be captured and sent to Gitmo.

[B-Man]

"Official" List

 

 

.

[B-Man]

Dr. Charles Krauthammer; Washington Post

 

Barack Obama: Drone Warrior : The president has become Zeus the Avenger — just in time for the campaign.

By Charles Krauthammer

 

A very strange story, a 6,000-word front-page New York Times piece on how, every Tuesday, Barack Obama shuffles “baseball cards” with the pictures and bios of suspected terrorists from around the world and chooses who shall die by drone strike. He even reserves for himself the decision of whether to proceed when the probability of killing family members or bystanders is significant.

 

The article could have been titled “Barack Obama: Drone Warrior.” Great detail on how Obama personally runs the assassination campaign. On-the-record quotes from the highest officials. This was no leak. This was a White House press release.

 

Why? To portray Obama as tough guy. And why now? Because in crisis after recent crisis, Obama has looked particularly weak: standing helplessly by as thousands are massacred in Syria; being played by Iran in nuclear negotiations, now reeling with the collapse of the latest round in Baghdad; being treated with contempt by Vladimir Putin, who blocks any action on Syria or Iran and adds personal insult by standing up Obama at the latter’s G-8 and NATO summits.

 

The Obama camp thought that any political problem with foreign policy would be cured by the Osama bin Laden operation. But the administration’s attempt to politically exploit the raid’s one-year anniversary backfired, earning ridicule and condemnation for its crude appropriation of the heroic acts of others.

 

A campaign ad had Bill Clinton praising Obama for the courage of ordering the raid because, had it failed and Americans been killed, “the downside would have been horrible for him.” Outraged veterans released a response ad pointing out that it would have been considerably more horrible for the dead SEALs. Obama only compounded the self-aggrandizement problem when he spoke a week later about the military “fighting on my behalf.”

 

The Osama-slayer card having been vastly overplayed, what to do? A new card: Obama, drone warrior, steely and solitary, delivering death with cool dispatch to the rest of the al-Qaeda depth chart.

 

So the peacemaker, Nobel laureate, nuclear disarmer, apologizer to the world for America’s having lost its moral way when it harshly interrogated the very people Obama now kills has become — just in time for the 2012 campaign — Zeus the Avenger, smiting by lightning strike.

 

A rather strange ethics. You go around the world preening about how America has turned a new moral page by electing a president profoundly offended by George W. Bush’s belligerence and prisoner maltreatment, and now you’re ostentatiously telling the world that you personally play judge, jury, and executioner to unseen combatants of your choosing, and whatever innocents happen to be in their company.

 

{snip}

 

Drone attacks are cheap — which is good. But the path of least resistance has a cost. It yields no intelligence about terror networks or terror plans.

 

One capture could potentially make us safer than ten killings. But because of the moral incoherence of Obama’s War on Terror, there are practically no captures any more. What would be the point? There’s nowhere for the CIA to interrogate. And what would they learn even if they did, Obama having decreed a new regime of kid-gloves, name-rank-and-serial-number interrogation?

 

This administration came out opposing military tribunals, wanting to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights, and trying mightily (and unsuccessfully, there being — surprise! — no plausible alternative) to close Guantanamo. Yet alongside this exquisite delicacy about the rights of terrorists is the campaign to kill them in their beds.

 

You festoon your prisoners with rights — but you take no prisoners. The morality is perverse. Which is why the results are so mixed. We do kill terror operatives, an important part of the War on Terror, but we gratuitously forfeit potentially life-saving intelligence.

 

 

 

But that will cost us later. For now, we are to bask in the moral seriousness and cool purpose of our drone-warrior president.

 

.